No matter how you slice it, the hacker scene is not a terrible diverse one. And yes, there are a few hackerspaces that are outliers. By and large there are a few certainties when walking into a hackerspace:

LEDs, lots of LEDs

Defunct 3D-printers

Upper-middle-class white males

Is that a problem? Yes it is, according to the hacker ethic. To quote Richard M. Stallman:

The hacker ethic refers to the feelings of right and wrong, to the ethical ideas this community of people had — that knowledge should be shared with other people who can benefit from it, and that important resources should be utilized rather than wasted.

Unless you define “other people” as upper-middle-class white dudes and the rest of humanity as non-people, hackerspaces and hacker events clearly fail this ethic merely by their lack of diversity. Since I am a white upper-middle-class dude myself, I am not terribly likely to figure out the fix for this since I’m quite likely to be part of the problem. Nonetheless this is about sharing a bunch of half-baked, slightly-assorted thoughts on contributing factors to the problem.

Disclaimer: These are opinions. You may not like them. These things happen when you express opinions.

In 2007, at the 24th Chaos Computer Congress the first effort at drafting design patterns was attempted. At the CCC Camp that same year, hackers on a plane brought Americans to Europe en masse for the first time to experience a far more vibrant hacker culture than existed in the US, at that time. Americans returned, and two new American hackerspaces sprung up. The first of many new spaces. The first drops in what would become a worldwide deluge.

5 years on, I find that a lot of the excitement that I was wrapped up in in 2007 has gone. What was once new, and full of promise, is now very much real, and part of the day to day humdrum routine of life. Hackerspaces are now so common place as to afford the term an entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. Hackerspaces.org’s blog hasn’t been updated in a year. Because honestly, what is there to say that we don’t already know? The new hackerspace smell is gone.

At one of the earliest NYC Resistor meetings Bre said “This thing isn’t real until it’s been around for five years.” Bre was trying to make a point about how much can happen in five years and why we’d need to plan for the things we didn’t see as being immediate concerns. He was right, more right I think, than he could ever have imagined. In the next 5 years of Resistor’s existence we saw enough members move to California to start a space there. And others move to even more far flung regions of the world. We’ve seen members marry, have kids, and start companies. One of those companies exploding out into the world, and maybe exploding a bit inside of itself as well. I myself, ended up spending a couple years at NASA Ames working on a wildly successful Open Source project. Something I would never have thought possible at the time. And, now after three years in California, I find myself back in NYC taking stock of things.

I think I have a message for Hackerspaces. One that I think is of critical importance. An addendum to the Design Patterns. Something new, that’s worth saying. At the 5 year mark, I find that my definition of hackerspace has changed.

NYC-Resistoroffshoot and a generally speaking cool company MakerBot Industries has caused a sudden uproar which seems not to subside. MakerBot has introduced two new successors in their Replicator series of 3D-printers, the Replicator 2 and the Replicator 2X, that for the first time in MakerBot history are not open hardware. Probably not coincidentally, people started to notice that Thingiverse, the online repository of 3D-designs which is also run by MakerBot Industries had changed its terms of use last February. I will quote the bit that has caused quite an uproar in verbatim:

3.2 License. You hereby grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to Company and its affiliates and partners, an irrevocable, nonexclusive, royalty-free and fully paid, worldwide license to reproduce, distribute, publicly display and perform, prepare derivative works of, incorporate into other works, and otherwise use your User Content, and to grant sublicenses of the foregoing, solely for the purposes of including your User Content in the Site and Services. You agree to irrevocably waive (and cause to be waived) any claims and assertions of moral rights or attribution with respect to your User Content.

The relevant bit of the old terms of use read as follows:

However, by posting, uploading, inputting, providing or submitting your content to Thingiverse.com, you are granting Thingiverse.com, its affiliated companies and partners, a worldwide, revocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, create derivative works of, distribute, publicly perform, publicly display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish that content for the purposes of displaying that content on Thingiverse.com and on other Web sites, devices and/or platforms.

The significant difference being that in the old terms of use the license had a limited scope, ‘use, reproduce, create derivative works of, display, transfer, transmit, distribute and publish’ , being the operatives. As a lawyer I tend to struggle with the application of copyright notions to open hardware, but precisely because open hardware and copyright are a poor match, the scope of this license was very much limited to Thingiverse-like platforms. As Bre Pettis wrote in his earlier blog on the change of the terms of use: this bit was probably nicked from the YouTube terms of use or those of a similar content-sharing platform. The net result was that this caused an inadvertent limitation on MakerBot Industries ability to incorporate stuff uploaded to Thingiverse in non-free open hardware products. Because selling a 3D-printer most likely does not fall within the scope of ‘the purpose of displaying that content..’, the newer terms of use however allow for such a thing.

Now these are both decidedly moves away from the openness that MakerBot was evangelizing in the past. Josef Prusa, of RepRap fame, has already started a Occupy Thingiverse movement and others in the community have responded so unfavourably that Bre Pettis, MakerBot Industries CEO and figurehead felt compelled to write a blog titled ‘fixing misinformation with information’ about it. In which he provides an argument that boils down “we haven’t figured out yet how to kick-start a hardware company with venture capital and remaining fully open at the same time. But trust us, we’ll be as open as possible, whatever ‘possible’ means”. Which is about as tangible as Mitt Romney’s promises for the policies he’ll enact when elected president. Mind you, this section 3.2 of the Thingiverse terms of use is comparable to what is known in free and open software circles as a contribution license agreement. There are are all sorts of ways and purposes for which these are used and having been part of an effort to harmonize these I won’t say it is an inherently evil thing to do.

What is less-than-awesome is the way both changes have been enacted by MakerBot Industries. It is one thing to publicly announce that you’re having to compromise on openness because building an open hardware business model is still pretty much uncharted territory and that you’re moving back to some enclosure and also stating what your goals for future openness are. It is another thing to do kind of omit it in the fanfare surrounding the launch of a new generation of your products, a new generation whose polish was made possible to a significant extent by all the people willing to put up with all the quirks, bugs and sometimes outright braindead engineering decisions embodied in your earlier generations, just because an open 3D-printing future is awesome.

It is outright underhanded to use the same legal tricks outright evil companies such as Facebook and Apple use for the terms of use of a website you awesomely started to create an ecosystem to change the playing field that you can reuse the fruits of other people’s labour and creativity in any way you see fit. Again, you could have announced that due to the different economics of tangible goods versus those of pure information, you’ll need to be able to do stuff that is not necessarily congruent with openness. If done so in advance, the uproar could possibly be equally as bad, but would eventually subside. Especially if you made it clear that if you were actually using a design contributed by a Thingiverse user, you’d be reimbursing them. In fact, MakerBot has already done so, without even being obliged to do so. So if you are already doing something that is acceptable, why not be transparant about it? Because that is what it all boils down: MakerBot betrayed the massive amount of trust it had and makes it worse by telling the community which calls it out for it to trust it even more. And this is what really baffles me. The world of open source is littered with projects that collapsed after a major actor in that community decided to enclose it. Who remembers Mambo? The fork away from OpenOffice.org to LibreOffice because none trusts Oracle? The current forks of MySQL, for precisely the same reason? Or closer to home, Junior Veloso who pulled a similar stunt resulting inbeing overtaken by B9Creator? MakerBot explicitly set out to create a community-based ecosystem, both on the 3D-printer hardware side and the 3D-design side of things. Put a massive effort into that, especially communication. And it is all being thrown away. With platforms like Github available, a Thingiverse contender can easily be created. And then what? MakerBot Industries still won’t have the control it apparantly craved and nothing to show for it to its venture capital funders. I just don’t get it. For now I’ll steer clear from Thingiverse and will suggest others to do the same.

One of the buzzwords doing the rounds in the past few years is ‘personal fabrication’. The idea that in the foreseeable future we all will be able to fabricate our own stuff. And although the founder of the fablab phenomenon, MIT professor Neil Gershenfeld, is pretty nuanced about it (watch his TED talk on the subject), some are actually talking about upsetting the traditional supply chains for manufactured goods. It actually is one of the stated goals of the Global Village Construction Set project by Open Source Ecology. The heavily ajective-laden newspeak of their website, this is actually a cool project. Watch Marcin Jakubowski’s TED talk about it. Also read Far McKon’s rather thoughtful criticism of it on his blog. The snark in me prevents me from omitting that the Open Source Ecology are doing everything in imperial measurements. Which aren’t quite useful for your stated target audience: farmers and villagers in the developing world. Get with the program guys, use metric!

Other than that, I find any ideas on reducing our interdependencies a bit interesting. There are a few snags here and there. First of all, economies of scale matter. They matter a great deal. Actually, a lot of the activity in hackerspaces would be impossible weren’t it for the fact that China has become our global workshop. There is no way other than massive robot usage in which we can ever dream to meet the current price-performance ratio of the Chinese manufacturing base. Also, do not forget that current shipping all over the globe is probably one of the last things to survive through the permanent oil crisis we have just entered. Simply because the energy expended lugging that container full of stepper motors for your repraps from Shanghai to Rotterdam or San Diego is actually pretty low. A shame that those massive container behemoths burn really dirty oil for that. Not even the next leg, either inland shipping over the river Rhine or over rail from San Diego elsewhere in the USA (granted, electrifying US rail networks would be a big win and will be inevitable). It is the last hundred or so kilometers that are the really energy-intensive part of those steppers’ journey.

Personal fabrication only makes sense for niche products such as spare parts and when access to the world’s supply chains is not really affordable. Which indeed means the developing world, but perhaps also rural communities in a not so distant future in which the world has stopped shrinking and has expanded again because oil is not so cheap anymore.

All of this does not mean that the GVCS is not an incredibly interesting idea that doesn’t deserve support. It also doesn’t mean distract one jota from the fact that affordable CNC-machines and additive manufacturing will make craftmanship accessible again, without the five years minimum you have to spend to get a skillset need for say, advanced woodworking. In the past lots of us had great ideas that would require the collaboration of several disciplines and therefore execution would be difficult. Now that lasercutters,CNC-mills and 3D-printers are within reach of hobbyists and hackerspaces, these barriers are crumbling. Atoms may or may not become bits, but lasercutters are cool!

As a mere participant of Revelation Space, a hackerspace (or makerspace, if you will) in The Hague, who also happens to practice law (but not corporate law), I found this article on hackerspaces.org interesting. Interesting but incomplete. Incomplete because it doesn’t really explore perfectly reasonable combinations of the patterns described. Also incomplete, because it reeks of a reinventing the wheel, but poorly. Read more…

One point I glossed over is why I believe that money and organizational forms are so intertwined when it comes to hackerspaces. This series could have been called, “Hackerspaces and Organizational Forms: Five Approaches.” Admittedly, I’m not talking much about money, how to find it, raise it or spend it. I haven’t talked much about fundraising, accounting or project management, though I plan to in the future. In my observation, what happens in Hackerspaces doesn’t need to be managed or carefully organized. Once Hackers gather in a space, they’ll begin creating and collaborating in ways that are remarkably similar regardless of culture, language or organizational form. Projects and programs that happen in one space can easily happen in other spaces, only marginally constrained by the organizational form in practice.

I believe the “magic” that happens in Hackerspaces is universal, as are the two necessary evils: Money and how to manage it. Being physical spaces, Hackerspaces have real costs and real opportunities for meeting those costs. Being collaborative spaces, the procedure for paying the bills involves some kind of relationship among the collaborators–that relationship is what we’re looking at when we discuss organizational forms. Failing to understand this relationship among the collaborators makes any discussion of funding very difficult. At the same time, carefully understanding these relationships as they’ve happened elsewhere gives future Hackerspaces the best chance of finding the right form for their own effort.

These forms are also heavily tied to the core source of income for each space. The Anarchy form, for example, implies that the rents for a space are essentially appropriated. The Angel form implies that they’re donated. The Owner form implies that they’re taken care of by a single participant, who generally subsidizes them. Both the Board and Membership forms implies that these costs are paid collectively by the participants, most often through membership dues. Hackerspaces, regardless of form, can solicit donations from the public, host classes for a fee, throw rent parties, sell shirts online, or Club-Mate in the space. However, each of those activities is handled differently depending on the form.

The Board Form

The Artifactory, Kwartzlab, Collexion, and Revelation Space are all different examples of the “Board” form. While each space heavily relies on its membership, each space has an involved subset of members that makes decisions. In a way, the “Board Form” is the least well-defined of the five forms and most prone to combination with other forms. Founder Todd Wiley describes Collexion as a hybrid of the Angel and Board forms:

Our board consists of people from our local chamber of commerce, universities, and higher ups at the local big-name tech companies (Lexmark & HP). This helps give us the legitimacy we need to raise funds. The board likes that they are fostering innovation, and see it is an economic development boost, because Lexington loves brains more than zombies do. The board is glad to help us organize things, find money, and host events, but most ideas come from the membership, where there isn’t a set hierarchy…By relying on outside sources we’re going to make membership as accessible as possible ($5 / month for students). The less barriers there are to experimenting the better…I think it will be successful, and free up hackers to hack, and those that are interested enough can take the reins and try to find monies.

As you might remember, we from revspace (den haag) were in doubt about the structure to choose. In the end we settled for the ‘stichting’, basically number four, mixed with elements of a ‘vereniging’, number 5. The board is ultimately responsible, however we define ‘participants’ that have the right to install and deinstall the board, as well as advise the board.

In many cases, a Membership space will have a Board of Directors. However, this doesn’t mean the space is taking on a Board Form, especially when a Board is required by corporate law.

The functional power that board has is the determining factor. If the Board is essentially a paper tiger, with the membership in functional control of affairs, the space is probably best suited to the Membership form. Punkin describes Kwartzlab as an example:

Legally, we’re Corporation Without Share Capital (Not-for-Profit), which matches “The Board”. We opted not to register as a Co-operative (which would more closely match “The Membership”), because the laws governing Co-operatives are more restrictive, without offering us any useful benefits. But the Co-operative or “Membership” philosophy closely matches our vision for the space, so we borrow heavily from it in our bylaws, policies, and procedures…We are 100% member funded (with all members paying the same level of dues), which was also very important to our initial membership. Any of the big decisions (like how much dues will be) are subject to a member vote, and all members-in-good-standing get an equal vote.

So, for lack of a better definition, if your space is primarily controlled by your members, it follows the Membership form. If the members leave most of the decisions and money matters to a subset, it probably follows the Board form. Landing firmly in one category or another is not necessarily that important, as long as the relationships of each are well understood. Some Membership spaces may functionally slip back into a Board form, just like Board spaces often migrate into Membership spaces, or use the Board form as a bootstrapping step.

Bootstrapping

David Cake describes how the Artifactory is using the Board Form to bootstrap their way into a Membership Hackerspace:

Our brand new Perth space is a board elected by the membership, and so far while the board has been doing a lot of the work and taking the lead on a lot of the decisions, meetings with the entire members are making most of the major decisions. So I guess we fit into the membership category really, even though the board are making a lot of important decisions in the process of getting us up and running.

Makers Local 256 is a non-profit 501c3 and would be considered “the membership” based, but I guess started out as “the board” based since the board is the original 10 members (changing soon given new bylaws and elections).

Makers Local 256 followed the critical mass pattern in establishing their hackerspace, with their original 10 members fulfilling the role of the 2+2 model. Their unique dues model describes how a Board can help build membership in the early stages:

The original 10 pledged a monthly donation that they could afford and we found a space that fit within that budget. We decided that extending this to new membership was a good idea and so we don’t have to turn away someone who might offer a lot but might not have a lot of money. A monthly pledge doesn’t have to be monetary but does fall under board discretion to ensure that said pledge benefits the space.

Especially when bootstrapping, a board can bring the agility needed to get things off the ground. Especially in the first weeks/months a lot of decisions need to be made, while at the same time the membership is still getting used to each other and the whole idea. Having to discuss all these decisions with the membership at large (apart from the fact that we currently have no actual membership defined as we are still in the process of forming the legal entity) will slow down the process of setting up the space a lot.

Of course, we, as a board, are listening closely to what the potential membership wants, and actively seek the opinion of everyone involved in the space. In any volunteer-driven organization you will see different levels of commitment. In my experience, those that become part of the board have a high level of commitment, and don’t mind pulling in a few extra hours for the greater good.

Advantages

The notable advantages of a Board space are formal organization with less administrative overhead from the participants, as well a greater degree of formal control vested in fewer people. In most cases where there isn’t a hybrid form with another style of organization, the advantages are remarkably similar to those of a Membershp organization. Here, I’m looking at advantages of a Board form

Anarchy: Board spaces are (generally) official legal structures with explicit expectations and guidelines for operation and more stable bases of operation.

Angel: Most Angel arrangements take on some kind of Board form. As in the case with Collexion, these Angels offer advice and consult with the organization through their board. The advantages of having a board include greater independence. In the hybrid form, the advantage of having a board generally involves a defined role for the Angels and the ability to swap or separate Angels if need be.

The Owner: Sometimes an Owner space will have a small, informal group of advisers. However, the purpose of a Board is to have a group of people who make decisions as a group on behalf of the stakeholders. In this case, the Board is somewhat accountable to its stakeholders whereas Owners may not be as accountable. Board spaces generally offer greater freedom and flexibility and rarely exercise a kind of “veto power” that Owners have by default.

Membership: Board run organizations tend to mediate disputes and prevent certain routine issues from getting to the Membership level. Generally, this means more time for members to enjoy their space.

Disadvantages

The notable disadvantages over alternative forms are also similar to the Membership form:

Anarchy: Board spaces must periodically file paperwork, support the space through dues, stay on top of other legal requirements and fulfill their stated obligations. This leaves less time for projects, hanging out, etc.

Angel: In the non-Angel form, Board members are often saddled with the heavy burden of coming up with the funds to run the space, and make tough calls on funding issues.

The Owner: Instead of having an owner to rely on for collecting and paying the rent, easily making special arrangements, mitigating disagreements among participants and having one “final say” on matters, Board members must come to agreement on certain issues or figure out ways to work around issues.

Membership: Ultimately, the Board is responsible for issues and decisions that otherwise might have been made by the membership. While the Board can occasionally punt, even a routine decision may run afowl of the membership and lead to difficulties.

Another disadvantage cited by Martens is what he describes as an anti-pattern of complacency:

…some members may fall into a consumer-like attitude. Expect the board to do the heavy lifting, and merely consume what the spaces makes available. The board members, by nature, will have a tendency to pick up work that is left undone, because they have a strong drive to ‘make it work’. That might lead to overworked board members, an apathetic membership, and failure of the space. That’s a doom scenario, and normally there will be someone to pull on the emergency brake before this happens. But still, something to be aware of I think.

Conclusion

The Board form is good for Bootstrapping, and depending on the environment, a next best form to the Membership model. Hackers are generally bad at paperwork and group dynamics, so having a Board to take care of the administrative overhead and mediate disputes can help ensure continuity and sustainability. It also works well as a hybrid with other forms, or as a means for acting as a firewall between Angels, Owners and Members. But beware of complacency!

As always, feel free to ask questions on the Hackerspaces Discuss list, or reach out to these spaces directly.

C-base. Noisebridge. C4. HacDC. They are officially recognized and organized as independent entities. These spaces are funded, operated and controlled as directly as possible by their members. They open their spaces up for events, classes and social gatherings, and eagerly invite new members to join. These spaces are good examples of the Membership form of organization, the style of organization that most directly inspired the wave of spaces that began to form in late 2007, after Hackers on a Plane and that year’s Chaos Communications Camp.

While these spaces may make it look easy, bootstrapping a space under the Membership form of organization is often far more difficult than pursuing other forms of organization, especially when starting from scratch. There are also other ongoing organizational challenges. Ultimately, if something fails, members can only blame themselves.

Bootstrapping

Unlike Anarchy, Membership spaces require an official form of organization with explicit expectations, rights and responsibilities of members. Unlike Angel spaces, Membership spaces require their members to contribute the bulk of what it takes to rent and operate the space. Unlike Owner spaces, Members have an equal say in where to locate, how much to pay in rent and what projects to pursue with group funds. While spaces run by a Board and spaces run by Members are largely similar, the degree of difference in control and responsibility can be substantial depending on the situation.

Following this formula, the first step in bootstrapping is officially forming an organization. Incorporating is usually the first place where the 2+2 model from the critical mass pattern comes into play. The 2+2 group is usually the first to sign the paperwork and contribute the startup funds necessary to secure and rent a space.

Even while the 2+2 group has an implicit authority by virtue of being founders and visionaries, all they can do is set an example, work on the tasks at hand and inspire others to help. Without a space, these membership groups recruit others by reaching out over e-mail, attending conferences, dropping by local events such as DorkBot and Maker Meetups, and hosting their own workshops in shared spaces. More members means more dues and resources, but it also means more opinions and potential for disagreement.

In some areas, the 2+2 group will often contribute a substantial boostrapping funds to execute a lease, after which the usual rent and expenses are paid for by member dues. In many ways, it’s easier to “sell” potential members on the value of a space once it’s actually leased. Some hackerspace efforts began collecting dues long before a space was leased, making the process of executing a lease a shared effort from the beginning. In any case, once a group is large enough to pay the expenses, it’s safe to call the bootstrapping process over.

Advantages

Anarchy: Membership spaces are official legal structures with explicit expectations and guidelines for operation and more stable bases of operation.

Angel: While Membership spaces can generally collect donations from outside the group, core expenses are paid for by members and function entirely independently.

The Owner: Members are not accountable to the concerns of an owner, the nature of their business, living situation or other concerns. As a group, members are free to use the space as they see fit, negotiate changes as a group of peers and have discussions where everyone is on equal footing. There is no “veto power” in a Membership group.

The Board: Members generally stay informed to all operations of the group and generally participate in any discussions that make a substantial change in the group. Instead of changing decisions made by a board, or waiting for a board election to intervene, decisions are made as a group from the beginning.

Disadvantages

The notable disadvantages over alternative forms require more work from the members and more time spent on administrative matters and potentially distracting disagreements:

Anarchy: Membership spaces must periodically file paperwork, support the space through dues, stay on top of other legal requirements and fulfill their stated obligations as members. This leaves less time for projects, hanging out, etc.

Angel: Members are generally constrained by the resources they can obtain themselves. Instead of having the space and cool projects paid for, members must assess dues and raise money to pay for rent and expenses.

The Owner: Instead of having an owner to rely on for collecting and paying the rent, easily making special arrangements, mitigating disagreements among participants and having one “final say” on matters, members must come to agreement on certain issues or figure out ways to work around issues.

The Board: Instead of electing someone you like to make decisions for you, members must spend time on an ongoing basis meeting to discuss issues and working to solve problems collectively.

Other observations

Talk of a fully democratic membership organization may be a bit misleading. In any group, leaders will generally emerge. Those founders who start spaces naturally fill a leadership role by guiding their space from nothing to existence. Sometimes, in the best interests of getting the space going, founders will gloss over underlying issues within the group that form from differences of opinion. Failure to resolve these in time usually results in group fragmentation that can lead to a group’s demise.

If the founders or other leaders who emerge exercise too much power, or hold onto it for too long, they can alienate others in the group or possibly even default in practice to another form of organization.

Another problem with fully democratic organizations is that members can always vote with their feet! Failing to attract new members or high membership turnover is also a big problem with membership spaces. Unlike Owner or Board spaces, every member is inherently responsible for creating the conditions that attract and retain members who help support the space.

Conclusion

While I strongly believe this form of organization is the best and most closely aligned with what hackers look for in a space, it’s not without its problems. Hackers are generally bad at paperwork and group dynamics, so sometimes an alternative form of organization is the best course of action to pursue. Sometimes ceding a little bit of control for the sake of having a space or keeping it open is the best thing to do.

However, if you’re serious about building a dynamic, sustainable space, you should consider following this model! It’s worked throughout the world and with the right energy, it can work for you too.

This is a Story originally written by Smári that was spread on the net by some other people. I asked Smári if I was allowed to post it here, since I think it’s really funny – and here it is:

[Disclaimer: This is a bit of a joke, written last night as I was falling asleep.]

I just arrived in London after another one of those mind-numbing long haul flights, this time from Mumbai. And in my eight hours of pneumonia induced pain I managed to watch a delightful array of films that I hadn’t gotten around to, including the fourth ‘Terminator’ movie.

Two-or-so years ago, just before it became public knowledge that this film was being developed, I was visiting MIT’s Center for Bits and Atoms when the makers of the film contacted CBA looking for technological goodies that could make the film more interesting. I’m sad to say that none of the more profound ideas tossed at them made the script, but either way, I think that the entire discussion contained an important implicit subtext which was lost on the kind of people who think that hurdling Christian Bale between flying machines whilst explosions happen is a good idea.

So I present here a short analysis of where the Terminator movies go wrong:

The first Terminator movie didn’t stretch things very much. It was a simple time travel scenario with man versus machine, a kind of crypto-luddite cumfest. It wasn’t until Judgement Day came around that the industrial model started to warrant scrutiny.

In Judgement Day we are treated to a view of Los Angeles being vaporized by a nuclear explosion. For the machines, this tactic makes sense. Take out major human outposts to diminish their numbers significantly straight off. Humans have very low tolerances for nuclear hijinx such as radioactivity, but machines, being simpler and more discreteized, can presumably take much higher doses before problems start to occur. Expose a titanium alloy to a source of beta radiation for long enough and sure enough it will melt or otherwise morph, but long before humans melt from that kind of radiation atoms in their DNA start picking up extra core elements, altering their nucleic structure, and causing their host to die a very brutal death.

This illustrates a model. Consider that for anything that is “required” for sustenance, or “must not be” for survival, there exists a continuum, and each individual occupies an interval on that continuum. The length of this interval is often called “slack”. More slack equals more likely to survive a lack of something crucial or an excess of something lethal.

Simply by comparing the average slack values and their 95% intervals for each individual species you can pretty easily discern the smartest set of tactics that can be employed by each side. The robots can go ahead and use nuclear instability, thermal radiation (metal objects tolerate high heat while humans like myself start to go all wiggly and faint when it’s higher than 45°C out), extreme climates, darkness, and that kind of thing to their advantage.

The humans on the other hand have a much better ways of dealing with machines at their disposal.

In Terminator 4 a huge 7-or-so-story evil robot thing came out of nowhere in one scene and started scooping up people. It later became a part of some sort of super-carrier aircraft. Each of these things must require a large amount of metal to build, not to mention rare earth metals, plastics, semiconductors, etc. In T-2 Schwarzenegger claims that he has a “metal” endoskeleton, without being specific as to which metals exactly. From what I’ve seen of the Terminator‘s Moh’s hardness, it is most certainly an alloy of something. Either way, Ferrum is for this kind of purposes a pretty aweful atom, and it kind of only makes up for it by fact of its general ubiquity. It requires lots of special treatment to be very hard, it rusts easily, and it is a crappy conductor compared to lots of other metals.

For proper construction of a Terminator you’d presumably need a bunch of metals: Titanium, Cobalt, Paladium, Chrome, Copper, Gold, Silver, Tantalum, etc. Each of these metals is relatively easy to get, provided you know where to look. Tantalum is a pretty good one. Most of it is mined in the Congo, by children. I would be very happy to replace those children with robots, but let’s face it: if the robots are out to kill us, one of our best ways to kill them off is to keep them away from tantalum. Even if that means making a bunch of child slave laborers unemployed. Not being able to use tantalum for capacitors would mean they’d need to use other types of capacitors, such as electrolytic, which have worse properties for a number of things, and are generally larger and more fragile.

See where I’m going with this?

Humans are part of an eco system that has been around for millenia, and through our evolution we have managed to adapt our “slack” values to be narrow for things very abundant in our environment (such as amino acids) and wide for things that are relatively scarce (such as certain metals). We can survive without tantalum. The robots cannot. We can survive without electricity. The robots cannot. We can survive without most of the infrastructure we take for granted – it won’t be pretty, but honestly, you can stick a human in a Mumbai slum far more readily than you can stick a Terminator.

Humans are good at surviving the kind of situation where everything is messed up and ugly. Our bodies adapt. Robot’s specifications don’t change. Sure, you’ll have a T-1000 liquid metal thing every now and then that’ll cause you some grief, but honestly there’s no threat that the T-1000 can pose that a little electromagnetic resonance burst can’t fix.
When it comes down to it, the battle between humans and robots is not so much about sheer power as it is about controlling the industrial chains. Attacking the slack. And as long as robots require things that are harder to get than the things humans need, the humans will win.

The next question probably comes down to money. The biggest hurdles to bootstrapping and maintaining a Hackerspace involve the management of resources that have actual value. Physical places, even ones which are “free”, require the payment of rent somewhere along the line.

A recent post on the Hackerspaces Discussion list points to the need for the right structure for organizing and managing the finances and resources of a Hackerspace. It’s a question each Hackerspace effort needs to consider carefully and resolve for itself. An organizational structure needs to accomodate each space’s unique culture and reconcile it to the various laws and conditions in play at the time of formation.

The five approaches I outline should be a good starting point for a discussion on the theory of Hackerspace organization. When I look at how Hackerspaces have functioned in the past and how they function today, this framework of five categories seems to make the most sense to me. That being said, odds are good that many spaces will not fit “cleanly” into any of these five categories. Categories are clean, nature is messy. We have to start somewhere.

A few spaces have functioned quite well without an explicitly organized system for managing money. Anarchy, as I use it, doesn’t mean the absence of order or even the absence of money. In this context, I’m describing spaces where needs were met on an ad-hoc basis by those involved. There may not be official dues, but a clear expectation that everyone involved needs to contribute something to make the effort work. Certain Hackerspaces in squats, temporary spaces, basements and other places that can be had for “the taking” are the most common. These efforts tend to prefer completely voluntary contributions and eschew explicit expectations. Some spaces that are officially organized on paper prefer to operate as close to Anarchy as possible, preferring overarching concepts (i.e. “Be Excellent to Each Other”) to specific policies.

It is possible to run a very good hackerspace without any kind of official organization. Were it not for legal matters, liability and a need for explicit order and hierarchies, it might be the preferred choice.

However, lots of reasons make Anarchy very difficult and unwieldy. Often, when dealing with lots of different hackers who have lots of different ways of doing (especially hackers who prefer structure and order) Anarchy just can’t work. There’s also the matter of accommodating new folks who may not share the viewpoints and collectivist spirit that otherwise make this style a possibility.

It’s worth noting that spaces in this category tend to have a strong political nature to them. While this is not an inherently bad thing, spaces that are intensely political tend to alienate or divide people who “just want to hack”.

For me, this is the most difficult category. Angel spaces are ones that rely on outside sources, those that aren’t direct participants, for the vast majority of their support. Hackerspaces in Universities, sponsored by Governments or ones that operate in other businesses without an explicit lease tend fall in this category. Other spaces that may have their own facilities, but could not pay their bills without outside “Angels” fall under this heading.

The natural advantage of an Angel space is that they allow Hackers more time to hack and less time layering on and cutting through red tape. In a perfect world, we’d all be able to rely on Angels to find spaces for us and stock them with all the parts and tools we need to make really cool projects. Of course, we aren’t living in a perfect world.

To be clear, I believe every space should attempt to seek some outside support, either through donated materials, equipment, special project grants, etc. Most spaces do this, but only a handful I know of rely on Angels for ongoing support. As a boostrapping step, calling on Angels is great idea. Recruiting members is often difficult unless you have a space they can see and get excited about, and sometimes you need some help from above to get going.

However, relying on Angels can tend to make groups lazy about their finances, collecting dues or taking other steps to ensure continuity if the Angels pull their funding. Spaces subsidized by Governments or Foundations tend not to plan for crises like what we’ve recently experienced and end up scrambling to survive when the funding comes to an abrupt end. For example, what would have happened to a space funded by a Foundation that fully vested in Bernie Madoff?

The other big problem is that Angel spaces are almost always more constrained in their activities than truly independent ones. Spaces in Universities in the US, for example, are often unable to host parties with Alcohol or make an effort to recruit those who aren’t students or somehow officially affiliated with the host University. There’s also the matter of spaces constraining themselves and their activities so they do not anger or alienate the Angels that support them.

Because my theoretical focus is on continuity and inclusiveness, I’m naturally going to be more critical of Angel spaces. If you’re part of an Angel space and see nothing wrong with it, speak up and say why it’s an ideal situation!

Spaces of old like New Hack City and the Walnut Factory and current spaces like Hackerbot Labs fall under this category. This category might also be called “Single Center of Gravity” because matters of signing the lease, collecting money for the rent and being accountable for liability concerns generally rest on one person’s shoulders. They usually have help and receive funds from those involved, but the money and legal recourse ultimately flows through them. Otherwise, the advantages and disadvantages of spaces run by “The Owner” are largely the same as those for Angel spaces, except the owner is involved and generally the recognized leader of the Hackerspace.

Owners tend to be the de-facto financiers of the space by virtue of being the landlord, responsible for improvements and manager of any activities to raise money. The first Hackerspaces in the US were traditionally founded and managed by one strong personality who probably found it easier to “just do it” than make an effort to start a separate organization and go through the requisite motions to keep it going.

Explicitly for-profit spaces, ones designed to make a profit, are also often started and financed by single entrepreneurs who are ultimately responsible for their operation. These business owners that self-identify their shop as Hackerspaces and make an effort to cultivate community (as opposed to purely customers) are a relatively new thing that warrants close examination.

As far as traditional, non-profit Owner spaces go, the continued success of Hackerbot Labs speaks to the viability of the model. I used to be a much harsher critic of these kinds of spaces, having seen owners get frustrated, give up and call people like me in to help clean up and wind down their space.

However, we need to look at all the models that work. It may just be that your local crew of hackers needs a solid focal point and a single leader in lieu of a more collective form of management.

Most spaces based on the Design Patterns will fall in to either this or the final category. Almost every Hackerspace that takes a corporate form will have a Board of Directors of some kind, as corporate law throughout the world generally requires it. The Design Patterns suggest that Hackerspaces start with a small core of persons who usually comprise the first members and, by default, become the first Board of Directors.

If this small core of persons continues to effectively own and control the Hackerspace, it falls in this category, However, if a space takes the suggestion of the Design Patterns, and hands over effective ownership and control to all those who support the space equally through dues or other means, it falls into the last category,

Sometimes, this isn’t always what you want to do. The question Koen posed in his post is one worth exploring and involves matters of law that differ across borders. Koen’s example cites Dutch law, where a stitching is a board and a vereniging is a membership organization:

“The difficulty is in judging what is right. On the one hand, the democratic principle of a ‘vereniging’ is very much compatible with my idea of how a hackerspace should operate. However, a ‘stichting’ is a safer keeper of things like money and equipment. This might be especially relevant if said money and equipment are injected by external parties. However, the ‘stichting’ can not have members, thus there is no ‘membership fee’: any money asked for usage of the facilities will to the tax office look very much like an entrance fee for a commercial service.”

And herein lies one of the biggest critical distinctions between these last two categories. Do you give members certain administrative control in exchange for their membership dues? Or do you end up paying taxes or losing potential revenue to keep closer control over resources?

Of course, the specific matters of law and taxes and their inherent advantages and disadvantages vary depending on the jurisdiction. In general, the key advantage to a Board is the safety of having more control in the hands of fewer people. The disadvantage is potentially marginalizing those participants who support the space and aren’t on the board. They might lose out on a certain sense of ownership that comes with being a fully member-controlled organization.

Most Hackerspaces based on the Design Patterns fall in this category. Generally, the space is run by members who each a specifically defined contribution in exchange for the benefits of having an equal say in the space’s operation and special privileges like a key, locker, etc. They decide how much to pay in dues, who gets a key, where to locate and so on.

While these spaces will still have a Treasurer to handle the finances, a Secretary to take notes, a President to preside over meetings, etc. what these officers do is ultimately determined by the members. Ideally, every member supports the space equally, through work or dues and gain a sense of equal ownership over the space itself. The members set the agenda, make informed decisions on how to handle administrative matters and give specific direction to the officers.

Of course, there are disadvantages to having a membership organization. What happens when you can’t get a quorum of enough members to make decisions? What if your membership is apathetic to administrative concerns? What if organizing is seen as too burdensome a requirement? Sometimes, as through the first example, the benefits of membership can be effectively conveyed through means other than establishing an official membership organization.

As a quick side note, there are some spaces that are technically organized under one category and functionally operate under another. The classic example is NYCResistor, which is formally organized as a for-profit Limited Liability Corporation (LLC) comprised of the original founders of the space. Legally, they’re an entity run by a subset of the members, putting them in the previous category. Functionally, the larger and ever changing dues-paying membership has an equal say on each issue and they meet every Tuesday to discuss business. The decision to become an LLC ultimately ended up being one of convenience and expedience.

The example of NYCR highlights two things. First, each space may fall into several categories for any number of reasons. (I could make a case that the Metalab falls into all of them!) Second, this is a theoretical construct designed to help illustrate similarities in forms of organization. It’s a starting point for a conversation, not an explicit means of dividing Hackerspaces into groups.

Conclusion

I believe every place where Hackers go to make things and socialize is a valid Hackerspace. Building Hackerspaces that last and are inclusive is a particular emphasis of mine, as I feel every hacker should have a nearby place to go, make, learn and socialize with kindred spirits.

Hackerspaces.org is about bringing all these spaces together and inspiring people to build their own. The aim of this theoretical discussion is giving people the tools and background required to make more Hackerspaces happen. Our emphasis in discussion should be on finding ways to work together, using criticism as a means for identifying pitfalls rather than a blow to the hard work of fellow hackers.

As always, this is just my own milepost in a much larger conversation meant to keep Hackerspaces going throughout the world. Please take it and run with it! The spaces need your thoughts too.

Hackerspaces aren’t a recent phenomenon. The latest crop of Hackerspaces to emerge over the past two years represent a Third Wave, something approaching a critical mass in a longer continuum of efforts Hackers have made to collaborate in physical spaces.

Spaces like the L0pht, New Hack City (Boston and San Francisco), the Walnut Factory, the Hasty Pastry, and many other First Wave spaces that date back to the early 1990s are the stuff of legend. Some of my most cherished memories among Hackers took place at NHC, circa 2001. I wish New Hack was still around, just down Market street under the “We Buy Diamonds” awning, only evidenced by a buzzer button labelled “SETEC Astronomy”.

Did spaces like NHC contribute to excitement over hackerspaces? Absolutely. Did they inspire the Hackers in Germany and Austria who began building spaces of their own in the late 90s? It’s a question worth looking at, it points at a need for expanded theoretical discussions about the development of Hackerspaces. Hackers throughout Europe fueled the Second Wave of spaces, proving Hackers could be perfectly open about their work, organize officially, gain recognition from the government and respect from the public by living and applying the Hacker ethic in their efforts.

I choose to view the Hackerspace phenomenon under a Toffleresque framework of successive waves. You might frame it more elegantly, or not frame it at all, and I will probably happily agree with your conclusions. As I wrote on the Hackerspaces discussion list, looking at the theory of hackerspaces is not about casting firm definitions or assigning motivations. It’s about identifying patterns, trends and theory that help us frame and examine what’s happening with Hackerspaces. It’s an invitation to open debate and documenting our thoughts and feelings about our spaces so we can benefit from each other’s experiences and give new spaces the benefit of our collected wisdom.

Firm debates along clear lines such as hackerspaces vs. non-hackerspaces, serving members vs. serving the public and spaces of old vs. spaces of new are not as clear cut as they’re sometimes framed. Simplification allows us to discuss generics and trends while lending others a framework for examining their own efforts. Developing and sharing theory is about being inclusive.

Even the idea of Hackerspaces as a benevolent collectives is worth challenging. As Hackers struggle to find work in the global downturn, why shouldn’t we have patently for-profit hackerspaces? The idea may be initially offensive, but what better way of getting towards a future where soldering irons are as normal in bars and coffee shops as pencils and moleskines are today? Instead of discounting the for-profit idea and other efforts to expand Hackerspaces as a concept, we should be encouraging and participating in such efforts. The global economy being what it is, who wouldn’t support some entrepreneurial hackers with their local parts store and coffee shop?

If we’re not growing conceptually, if we’re not networking as spaces efficiently, if we’re not exciting those younger and more enthusiastic than we are, this incredible global phenomenon we’ve got going is bound to fail. In a way, a certain level of failure is inevitable. Odds are good that we’re going to lose some spaces over the next year. With some continued effort and global cooperation, we can keep most of the explosive net growth we’ve had over the past two years. We can build a future where a hackerspace is already waiting in the next place our life takes us.

The First Wave showed us that hackers could build spaces. The Second Wave showed us how to make it sustainable. The Third Wave will ultimately provide us with critical mass, or it’ll peter out. So much effort goes into building these spaces and so much good comes out of them that I believe we must focus on ways of keeping them alive and vital.

Looking at the history of these spaces and the theory behind them is something we can all take part in. Even if you aren’t directly involved in a hackerspace, you can help research old spaces and contribute your findings to the hackerspaces.org wiki. If you have experience with non-profits, write a wiki page on fundraising, or some other aspect you have experience in. If you are involved in a Hackerspace, respond to Far McKon’s Hackerspace organization questions, join the Hackerspaces discussion list and jump on the upcoming call-in!